Let’s Talk Mitigation : Extended First Family

I am a wee bit behind schedule on this weeks topics. I am going to scrap Pot Luck for Friday and use today for Mitigation and Thursday and Friday for Management.

Again, as mentioned in previous post, mitigation is the “act of mitigating, or lessening the force or intensity of something unpleasant, as wrath, pain, grief, or extreme circumstances”.

Mitigating Collateral Damage to the First Family

We had some limited chatter on how to mitigate damage to mothers prior to surrender. How about we extend this to the first family? What might we do to educate first grand parents? Spouses or partners of the expectant mother (particularly if they are part of her decision process)? Or should we?

I will offer that my mother was part of my decision process – a huge part. She arranged for my dispatch to the agency and the maternity home and when my daughter was born she was present. The agency capitalized on her ignorance and conservative beliefs. She was wildly ignorant to the realities of adoption and what it might do to her daughter or her grandchild.  She was given no explanation of the process, no information, no counseling on what would happen to me or her first born grand child. So I ask again, should she have been? This is a bit of an emotional minefield, I realize, but I am curious what others might think.  Should first family members present and involved with the surrender be provided information on the possible impact of said surrender?

5 thoughts on “Let’s Talk Mitigation : Extended First Family

  1. Yes, especially if the mother is young, her parents should absolutely be counseled on adoption. They should be made aware of the life long effects of adoption on not only their daughter, but also the child being given up as well as themselves. They need to be made aware that adoption will not only effect their daughter, but any future/current children she parents, her future romantic relationships, possibly even their own relationship with her. They especially need to know the reality of adoption if they are the ones pushing for the adoption in the first place.

  2. Absolutely vital! Yes, they should be thoroughly informed of all information and studies done on the (possible) impacts of loss to adoption on the mother AND her child. Then let me recommend they be referred for a psychiatric evaluation if they still persist in their efforts to separate mother and child.

  3. Suz wrote: “Should first family members present and involved with the surrender be provided information on the possible impact of said surrender?”
    Fpr God’s sake, YES! My parents were encouraged not to be involved, to not “influence my decision”. I was not a minor, but not independent, had post partum depression and was in no shape to live on my own with a child, either financially or emotionally. Had my parents and my boyfriend been involved by the agency instead of encouraged to stay away, , and my parents counseled to let my bring my baby home, the adoption would never have happened and all of us would have had a much happier life and better relationship. I resented my parents not “saving” me and my son for years, and they suffered from terrible guilt.

  4. I admit I am rather surprised – yet pleased – to see the responses here. I was fully expecting someone to point out (and maybe they still will) that the mother is the carrier of the child, it is her body, involving her parents or others may put undue pressure to parent I find it interesting that we too often see the possible pressure others may put on a mother versus the possible support. That alone is telling. Why do we always focus on the negative?

    Curious what others will say.

  5. Suz you wrote, “..I find it interesting that we too often see the possible pressure others may put on a mother versus the possible support. That alone is telling. Why do we always focus on the negative?” I’m not quite sure that I understand your meaning and definitions here. The ones that control adoptions narrative seem to be the ones that have turned it negative in the sense of “oh we don’t want to pressure someone to parent their child.” It’s the institution of this vile practice that turns that kind of thing negative. They want product. Chances of product being available is greatly reduced if someone (parents or boyfriend or family) becomes an educated partner in helping and encouraging the mother to be to parent. Let’s keep the mother and their family members EITHER apart and /or keep them all in the dark like a mushroom and feed them the “win-win” manure of adoption rainbows and unicorns.

    This “Oh we can’t ‘force’ them to parent! How awful that would be.” But they can pull out all the stops to say how hard and /or horrible it would be to parent. How horribly detrimental it would be for the child. I call b.s.

    FULLY INFORMED consent or NO CONSENT ALLOWED. Period. That is one big step in mitigating the wide ranging collateral damages this lifetime nightmare called loss to adoption brings with it. Another thing is NO pre-birth, or within days of birth consents. 30 days MINIMUM time frame to allow a mother some time to recover. No more of this snatch, grab and run, hurry, hurry.

Comments are closed.